 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Good method Yin - I tested out at a (-2) - so based on that, I should enjoy what the game has to offer at this point in time.
However, I am still concerned about several areas - and since I have yet to get the game, the Forums are the only place to get a perspective on how things are working in it - so excuse any ignorance on my part.
1. Combat - There are a lot of reports about the combat producing more than normal skewed results, where ancient units win a lot against modern units. I do not think this will be patched in, as this will require a complete reworking of the model. However, this is an area that can be modded - provided that the editor is fixed.
2. Corruption - The one thing that troubles me are the reports that despite the necessary improvements built by a player, corruption is very unmanageable. It does not pay to set up on another continent. The thing is, that adjustments to corruption setting will also work toward the AI, so an adjustment in this area could make the game less frustrating for the player. He will feel that he is able to accomplish something, rather than beating his head on the wall after doing what he was supposed to do to limit corruption.
3. Culture - Again, this is one area where there are reports of players doing the right thing to maintain culture, and then losing a city to a culturally inferior city - as well as getting no warning whatsoever that he will lose his city and all troops in it. Face it, when the most attractive option in capturing a city is to raze it (and this seems to be the norm), something is wrong. Once again, frustrating...
4. System requirements. I have a PII-350 with 192 RAM, and there are reports about the incredibly long wait on turns on systems more powerful than mine. I refuse to go out and buy a new computer for the sake of a game, especially when the system I have works well for everything else I play.
5. The lack of promised features. Do I want to buy a game and then have to fork over additional money for a good editor? I am hoping that this will be patched in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Just to give you my prespective on the below:
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Good method Yin - I tested out at a (-2) - so based on that, I should enjoy what the game has to offer at this point in time.
However, I am still concerned about several areas - and since I have yet to get the game, the Forums are the only place to get a perspective on how things are working in it - so excuse any ignorance on my part
1. Combat - There are a lot of reports about the combat producing more than normal skewed results, where ancient units win a lot against modern units. I do not think this will be patched in, as this will require a complete reworking of the model. However, this is an area that can be modded - provided that the editor is fixed. |
I agree, we have to wait for the editor, but there is hope 
quote:
2. Corruption - The one thing that troubles me are the reports that despite the necessary improvements built by a player, corruption is very unmanageable. It does not pay to set up on another continent. The thing is, that adjustments to corruption setting will also work toward the AI, so an adjustment in this area could make the game less frustrating for the player. He will feel that he is able to accomplish something, rather than beating his head on the wall after doing what he was supposed to do to limit corruption.. |
Soren said that this will be (most likely) addresses in the first patch.  plus I don't think that all players who are complaining are using all the options available like forbidden palace and WLTK day for example.
quote:
3. Culture - Again, this is one area where there are reports of players doing the right thing to maintain culture, and then losing a city to a culturally inferior city - as well as getting no warning whatsoever that he will lose his city and all troops in it. Face it, when the most attractive option in capturing a city is to raze it (and this seems to be the norm), something is wrong. Once again, frustrating..... |
I can't wait to get the game and see this for myself, but this seems like a potential gameplay problem
quote:
4. System requirements. I have a PII-350 with 192 RAM, and there are reports about the incredibly long wait on turns on systems more powerful than mine. I refuse to go out and buy a new computer for the sake of a game, especially when the system I have works well for everything else I play. |
apparently a lot depends on the system compatibility and drivers, there are many people who play at older machines and the game runs well.
quote:
5. The lack of promised features. Do I want to buy a game and then have to fork over additional money for a good editor? I am hoping that this will be patched in. |
that is suckage but dang I know that initially they said MP will be patched.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ProfessorPhobos
|
|
About those long turn times....is anyone holding down Shift? Supposedly it speeds it up quite a bit. There's also supposed to be a hot key to make it so you don't have to hold down shift to speed up the other guy's turns, but I haven't found it yet.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
[*][-1]I want Civ3 to be Alpha Centauri +
[*][+2]I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.
[*][+2]I am used to bugs and don't really care if a patch is released as long as it's playable.
[*][-1]I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way.
[-1]I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.
[*][+1]I like big weapons to be an important part of the game but not necessarily as important in game-terms as are their real-world equivalents.
[*][+1]I think good graphics and sounds are important but not a defining part of the game.
[*][-1]I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about all aspects of the game.
[*][+1]I think the interface is good enough if I can learn it rather quickly, even if it's a little quirky.
[*][-1]I think game turns should be swift from beginning to end.
According to your list, I'm +2, but I'm in absolutely no hurry to get the game, mainly because my weights on these things would be radically different than yours. I mean, I don't care about MP, so the fact that Civ3 shipped without MP means nothing to me, certainly not a plus. And I like good manuals, but if the game is good, I'll forgive. Same with lack of bugs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
[/0]I want Civ3 to be Civ2 +
Never played AC...
[+2]I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.
I suck at all things muliplayer 
[-1]I want the game out of the box to be without any major bugs that affect gameplay.
No excuses. Beta should have found any major bugs.
[-1]I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way.
This is vital to any good game, esp. a TBS.
If I can't understand it, it bores me.
[-1]I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.
Bring it on, Soren!
[+1]I like big weapons to be an important part of the game but not necessarily as important in game-terms as are their real-world equivalents.
If they were like in real life, you could never use them without being obliterated. How's that for fun 
[+1]I think good graphics and sounds are important but not a defining part of the game.
Civ2 was good enough graphics for me. More is nice, but not an absolute.
[-1]I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about all aspects of the game.
There's nothing I like more than reading a good manual.
[+1]I think the interface is good enough if I can learn it rather quickly, even if it's a little quirky.
A TBS this detailed can't be a user interface heaven. It's got to be good, but realistically I expect some initial clunkiness.
[-1]I think game turns should be swift from beggining to end.
If i wanted to wait, I'd play chess 
Hey, I got a 0... sounds good to me. There should be some good patches out for Christmas (I hope) so I guess I'll still get the game this December. Your system is pretty good, Yin!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
Can you say "burnout"? Yin (and perhaps many others) are exhibiting the classic symptom of over indulgence. It's like diving into a vat of chocolate and gorging yourself until you are sick of it. Too much of a good thing (like the one-more-turn feeling which yin admitted to) can turn anyone against it. Now you know why I usually approach all new games slow and easy. In the 10 days I've had Civ3, I only put in 8-9 hours total (still on my first game). I will not get burned-out from playing Civ3 or any other game because the fun factor is the most important thing for me. I always try to maintain a high level of fun factor and if that means playing slow and rotating games, then that's what I'll do. Take a break, many of you have been over-indulging and thus have lost perspective. Just my advice.
On a related note. The Civ3-General forum has degraded into a complete waste of time. That is to be expected since about now, the burnout factor is showing. Hopefully in the next month, many such folks would be weeded out (as in, go elsewhere) and what we'll have left are those that can play Civ3 for fun, despite its quirks (just like what has been going on the past few years in the Civ2 forums). Personally, I will wait patiently for the scenarios, for that when the real fun begins for me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
#1) I wanted the game to revolutionize the genre, but would have been satisfied with a game that showed 1/2 of the innovation that SMAC had. < - 1.5 >
#2) Multiplayer / Editor. I don't care much about either of these, though I do appreciate the value added when they are there. < +1 >
#3) I expect bugs, but there is no reason why major gameplay elements like interception should not work. None. The game was not ready. The scale here is flawed, I don't think that it's unrealistic to have a game that has been properly tested. < -1 >
#4) If I want mystery, I'll play Myst. < -1 >
#5) I like variable AI personalities. < 0 >
#6) I like realistic effects, like over 50 years with nuclear weapons and only two used so far. None of these categories fit that, so I give myself a < 0 >
#7) Servicible, and preferably not annoying. < +2 >
#8) A good manual, like SMACs for example, is great. It allows you to study up on some concepts where you can't be playing the game, like the bathroom. < -1 >
#9) The interface should be very good, because it will save you thousands of discreet actions over time. This interface is not good by the way, I prefer both SMAC and Civ 2. < -1 >
#10) I don't know of any way around the long turns at the end problem, other than allowing a builder type player to build in peace without playing on a larger type map. < + 2 >
Total = <-2.5>
I am already bored by Civ 3 to tell the truth, and fired SMAX back up today. Perhaps I will give Civ 3 another chance after the patches come out, but if anyone wants to buy the game from me for half price let me know. I seriously doubt that the game will really be 'fixed' enough for me to enjoy it over the long run. I won't be buying anything else with the Civ name on it. The concepts are old and played out for the most part. There will always be good new empire games coming out, but Civ has become such a franchise that apparantly it must be conservative to the point of being dull. It's too bad really, because Fireaxis is obviously capable of building really innovative games. I'm waiting for MOO 3 and praying for MOM 2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
 |
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mattcj
Interesting review... I came out a +3. I have the game although have not had time to play it, yet. I tell you though, Yin... you'd never make it in the software industry. As a developer myself, I can safely say that the pressure from above to release something on time can be quite taxing. At my company, I have a director of marketing that was ready to release my stuff with no testing at all just because when he watched a demo, it didn't crash at all!! Luckily, somebody talked some sense into him.
You stated So let me get this straight... you want them to develop a perfect game, a perfect multiplayer game, keep the world well informed of their progress, etc. In the software world, it don't work that way. The day you see that is the day the world grinds to a halt. |
He didn't say he wanted a perfect game and perfect multiplayer in addition to being kept informed he said he wanted to be kept informed and to have a game that doesn't have major flaws/bugs.
This is not impossible or even unreasonable. You doubt me? Go to moo3.quicksilver.com and check that site out and tell me again how "it don't work that way."
My biggest question is this:
If Moo3 is a certified smash, then what other EXCUSE will game companies have for NOT keeping their customers informed during the development cycle?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
|
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Hmm, -2 on the scale.
Pretty accurate. After being disgusted by the "facelift" only changes between Civ1 & Civ2 I was hesitant to get Civ3 even after hearing about all the supposed changes. 
I bought it anyway.
Game play is a lot of fun and is different enough, with culture and resources, to bring back the fun factor of Civ1.
Problems I have with the game...
1. Not enough tech's and/or VERY slow discovery of tech's.
Thirty-two turns between discoveries? That's a tad long. How about adding MORE tech's and cutting down the time factor?? With so few advances there are to many "tech's" they try to cram into one advance.
2. Not enough construction options.
I went to war at least twice in the game sinply because I had 50-100 turns where I could build nothing of import other than "wealth". This from a player who doesn't normally go to war until either late in the game or early to get enough room to grow.
Going to war because it's more productive to build military units instead of commerce (ala the WEAK "wealth" component) doesn't seem to bode well with the idea of winning via any other means than conquest.
3. Minor other things covered by other folks.
Including:
AI building small cities on useless terrain (discovered all resources, there was nothing near these cities).
AI ignoring borders to send settlers/units across my terrain, borders should MEAN something other than for culture.
Resource "clumping". I am playing in a game now on small continents. Four civilizations had smallish "island" size continente and the rest of us are on the large land mass. There are 10 patches of oil in the game (huge, 16 civ's). Five patches of oil on the main land mass, one in my territory and 4 in the other main Civ's territory. We both control maybe 60% of the total area on the large continent. The other 5 patches of oil you wonder? They are ALL on one of the smallish "island" territories controlled by a Civ that isn't even out of the medival(sp?) age yet. I thought resources (from what I heard) are supposed to be more random/scattered than this???
Pollution causing land degredation. Has anyone actually studied the "greenhouse" theories lately? Try this on for size...
1. Global temperature goes up a fraction of a degree (which is has done for thousands of years anyway, it's a cycle, not entirely man-made).
2. Ice caps melt a little.
3. Oceans rise and more humidity goes into the air due to increased water and increased temperature.
4. More rain/snow falls due to higher humidity and increased water coverage.
4. More rain equals MORE fertile areas which in turn EQUALS more trees, bushes, etc. NOT LESS. More snow equals MORE ice in the polar regions, NOT less.
5. The cycle repeats until we start to enter another ice age (which we're still recovering from BTW).
Now then, with this simple logic in play how is it that global warming, in less than 150 game years since anyone discovered how to build factories do we have grassland already turning into plains???
I realize there should be some negative aspect to pollution but make a certain amount of citizens unhappy (that can't be mollified due to luxuries, luxury rate, city improvements or entertainers, but STOP the stupid "global warming theory"!
Anyhow, good game, as addictive as the first yet still leaves me with HUGE blocks of time where I can build nothing and am simply waiting to ge the next tech advance. Hopefully when the editor comes out we can add more advances and/or more city improvements to spread units and city improvements out to balance things a little more. After all who wouldn't mind having more units of buildings to play with? Maybe not as many as the CtP series had but a few more than this at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Analyst Redux
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Yes, that's why I finally decided to call it: Yin's Civ3 Expectation Scale!.
I realized that so much of the arguments going on around here center on expectation levels. So it only makes sense to give advice to people thinking about buying the game by asking them what they expect.
My expectations weren't entirely met, but I'm still in the hopeful category. Fair enough, I say. Firaxis still has a lot of time to add in all the polish and balance here. I just hope that is their plan. |
Hello, Yin. I wonder if you remember me from the SMAC boards? I recognize your name, and I recognize Imran still displaying his "love it or leave it" bumper-sticker WRT all Civ-related products, but I don't recognize many other names. Are any of my old buddies from the TICHQ around? Do you even remember what TICHQ stands for? LOL
I wanted to add my praise to others for your incisive expectation-based review and analysis of the latest product from this team. I think you've done an excellent job of focusing on some very salient points. One's reaction to an updated Civ game is, indeed, something driven powerfully by expectations.
Having been twice burned by rushing out to buy the initially released and, substantially unfinished, versions of Civ 2 and SMAC, I thought that I'd drop by the Apolyton forums *before* buying this time. I'm happy I did. Same bad habits, different release, it seems to me, based on what I'm reading from the more analytical sources on this board.
This time, I'm going to wait. Wait until it appears that the patches have run their course. Wait to see if, just as they did the last two times, they make substantial adjustment to game rules based on early-adopter/unwitting-beta-tester feedback. Wait to see if multiplayer is going to be free or a $20 add-on (those of you who are confident it will be a fully and properly implemented freebie are willfully ignoring the history of this franchise). Wait, IOW, until the game is actually a finished product.
Twice bitten, thrice shy here.
I will buy it eventually, and I'm sure I'll enjoy playing. It's worth some amount of money just to upgrade the game, experience a new look and feel, and explore some new game rules. It seems to me that the rules changes in this release might just finally drive a stake through the heart of over-simplistic rush conquest and ICS strategies, which is a good thing.
As you may remeber, though, my primary focus is on the challenge the AI brings to solitaire play. WRT my pet issue, I'm deeply skeptical about claims of big advancements in the AI. What I've read so far in player reactions that it's harder to do well is more explainable from the rules changes eliminating simplistic winning formulas than an advancement in AI.
Example: The programmers already managed to "teach" the AI to mass units for attack in SMAC. If, in SMAC, you chose to play passively and build (I say "chose" because one never really had to be passive in SMAC), the AI would, eventually, bring a big, mixed load of units to an attack point, though it really took a long time for the AI to manage it. I see two rules changes in Civ3 that make it more likely you'll see such massed attacks by the AI more frequently: (i) the difficulty in pacifying conquered cities that make sustained agressive campaigns an impossiblity, requiring human players to spend less game time in agressive military postures, conversely allowing the AI to build up its mass attacks; and (ii) the freeing of military units from sheild support, which was always something that got the AI into big trouble in terms of building an army of sufficient strength for one of its massed attacks. The same old AI will perform better absent these restrictions.
And on the flip side of this example are all the same complaints about AI behavior that I remember from before. Horrid city placement, insanely agressive behavior when cut off from further overland expansion opportunities, substandard city management and development. I strongly suspect that the new challenges of Civ3 have a lot more to do with rules changes than they do with a more competent AI.
So, I'll ovserve now, as I did on the release of SMAC (which I did run out and buy on Day 1), that if you aren't going to have multiplayer in the release, your claims of challenging AI to play solitaire against better be more than smoke. Until I'm convinced that it is, me and my $50 will stay on the sideline and waste time in the ways I've already become accustomed to, hehe.
Once again, Yin, nice job. You've said everything this old Civ vet needs to know to make his purchasing decision.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2001 01:34
|